Supreme Court overturns acquittal in murder case: State vs. Laly (2022) INSC 881

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 881
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction in a murder case when there is a credible eyewitness? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony when deemed reliable. The court overturned a High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, reinstating the trial court’s conviction. This case highlights the judiciary’s approach to evaluating evidence and the weight given to eyewitness accounts in criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of one Saravanan. The prosecution argued that the accused committed the murder due to animosity arising from a prior incident where a friend of the accused, Selvakumar, was murdered on 31 July 2013. The accused suspected that Saravanan had provided information about Selvakumar’s whereabouts. On the day of the incident, the accused, armed with weapons, stopped the car in which Saravanan, PW1, and another person were traveling. They attacked the car, broke the windshield, and A1 injured Saravanan on his right shoulder. Saravanan attempted to flee, but the accused chased him into a shed where they inflicted further injuries, leading to his death on the spot. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by one Mahendran. The accused were arrested on 2 August 2013 and 17 August 2013. The police investigation led to a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 341, 506(2), 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) r/w 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (TNPPDL Act). The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court later acquitted them.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court examined 21 witnesses, marked 36 exhibits, and 16 material objects. PW2, PW3, and PW5 were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution’s case. However, the trial court relied on the testimonies of PW1, PW4, and PW6 to convict A1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and A2 & A3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The High Court, however, set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitting the accused. The High Court’s decision was based on several reasons, including the non-examination of the original complainant, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, doubts about the FIR’s genuineness, and discrepancies in the timing of the incident and the arrest of the accused. The High Court noted that the FIR was registered at 1:45 PM, but reached the Magistrate only at 7:00 PM, raising doubts about its genuineness. Additionally, the High Court pointed out that the police were allegedly at the scene within 5 to 10 minutes of the occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses, including the complainant, at the scene, which was not reflected in the prosecution’s case. The High Court also noted that the blood group of the deceased was not ascertained and correlated with the blood stains on the clothes and weapons.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Arguments by the State:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused by overturning the trial court’s conviction.
• The prosecution had proven the case against the accused by examining relevant witnesses.
• PW1, an eyewitness, fully supported the prosecution’s case.
• The incident occurred in two parts: first, when the car was attacked, and second, when the deceased was chased into the shed. PW1 was present at both locations.
• The testimony of PW1 was credible and should not be disbelieved.
• The State relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, to argue that the conviction should be restored.

Arguments by the Accused:

• The High Court had given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused.
• Out of six eyewitnesses, three (PW2, PW3, and PW5) did not support the prosecution.
• PW4 was disbelieved by the trial court due to material contradictions.
• Mahendran, the original complainant, was not examined.
• There were material contradictions in the testimonies about the injuries caused.
• PW1 was outside the shed and did not see the accused causing injuries in the shed.
• The recovery of weapons was not proven by the prosecution.
• The accused relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala, (2004) 9 SCC 193, regarding the timing and place of the incident.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 IPC, despite the presence of a credible eyewitness?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, stating that a conviction can be based on the deposition of a sole eyewitness if the witness is found to be trustworthy.
• The Court distinguished Kunju Muhammed v. State of Kerala, (2004) 9 SCC 193, stating that the facts of that case were different and not applicable to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility and reliability of the eyewitness testimony of PW1. The Court emphasized that PW1’s testimony was consistent, even after thorough cross-examination, and that there was no valid reason to doubt his account of the events. The Court also noted that the High Court’s reasons for acquitting the accused were not sufficient to discard the testimony of a reliable eyewitness. The Court highlighted that the non-examination of the original complainant and minor contradictions in other testimonies were not grounds to acquit the accused when a credible eyewitness account was available. The Court also stressed that the recovery of weapons is not a prerequisite for conviction when there is direct eyewitness evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the eyewitness testimony of PW1. The legal principles were applied to the facts, but the factual analysis played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, primarily focusing on the credibility of PW1’s testimony. The court reasoned that the High Court’s grounds for acquittal were insufficient to overturn the trial court’s conviction based on a reliable eyewitness account. The court’s decision was based on the principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single, credible eyewitness.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• PW1 was a credible and reliable eyewitness.
• The High Court’s reasons for acquittal were not valid.
• The non-examination of the original complainant was not a valid ground to discard PW1’s testimony.
• Minor contradictions in other testimonies were not sufficient to discredit PW1’s testimony.
• The recovery of weapons is not a prerequisite for conviction when there is direct eyewitness evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

“Having gone through the entire deposition of PW1, it can be seen that PW1 is the eye witness to the occurrence at both places.”

“We see no reason to disbelieve and/or doubt the credibility of PW1.”

“As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimony of a single, credible eyewitness can be sufficient for a conviction.
• High Courts should not overturn trial court convictions based on minor inconsistencies or non-examination of the original complainant when a credible eyewitness is present.
• Recovery of weapons is not a prerequisite for conviction when there is direct eyewitness evidence.

This judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases and clarifies the circumstances under which a High Court can overturn a trial court’s conviction. It emphasizes the need for a thorough evaluation of witness credibility and the weight to be given to direct evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities or the concerned court within six weeks to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court. If the accused failed to surrender within the stipulated time, the concerned Superintendent of Police/Court was directed to take the accused into custody to serve out the sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimony of a single, credible eyewitness is sufficient for a conviction, and High Courts should not overturn trial court convictions based on minor inconsistencies when a reliable eyewitness is present. This judgment reaffirms the principle established in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, and reinforces the importance of direct eyewitness evidence in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new legal principle but reiterated the existing principle that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single, credible eyewitness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the trial court’s conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized the credibility of PW1’s eyewitness testimony and held that the High Court’s reasons for acquittal were not valid grounds to discard the deposition of a reliable eyewitness. The judgment underscores the importance of direct eyewitness evidence and the judiciary’s role in ensuring that justice is served based on credible evidence.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Murder, Eyewitness Testimony, Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can someone be convicted of murder based on the testimony of only one witness?
A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the witness to be credible and reliable.

Q: What happens if the original complainant is not examined in a case?
A: The Supreme Court has clarified that the non-examination of the original complainant is not a valid ground to discard the testimony of a reliable eyewitness. The court will consider the available evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

Q: Is it necessary to recover the weapon used in a crime to convict someone?
A: No, the recovery of the weapon is not a prerequisite for conviction if there is direct eyewitness evidence. The court can convict based on credible eyewitness testimony even if the weapon is not recovered.

Q: What should you do if you are an eyewitness to a crime?
A: If you are an eyewitness to a crime, it is important to report the incident to the police and provide a truthful account of what you saw. Your testimony can be crucial in ensuring that justice is served.